I suppose that a certain level of success might justify a certain degree of arrogance and authority, but if that authority goes so far as to include "do an all-juice fast and don't cheat or I won't work with you," your entire industry is fucked up. See also: fashion modeling. There are some things that human beings…

Hot paraguayas, here we come!

Nah, he just spent twenty-five years living in Brazil.

The invisible hand works!

Frankly, off-brand tattoos are often hotter on women than real pro ink. It's like how some people think that tanlines are more fascinating than all-over tans.

Just go read Score, for Pete's sake. Or go to the mall.

"If there is hope it lies in the pubes"

I've been called "pretty hairy for a blonde guy." And once dated a woman that found hairy legs to be a man's most attractive physical quality.

For some, but the thing is that for a lot of straight men, the vagina is the Big Mystery. Not that we don't know what's there, but it's like one of those enormous, irrational psychological unknowns. Shaving everything has this sort of "revealing the unrevealable" aspect to it which is kind of weirdly taboo for reasons…

My ex bought me a subscription because she said I needed to be schooled in the classics.

What about The Onion?

It makes them do it in a corner insofar as hiring preferences for government and other jobs is illegal, that there aren't any religious tests for office, and that our courts pay heed to the American Constitution and not the Bible. Maybe I should have clarified. A disturbingly large percentage of Americans would…

Right, right, right. But you do realize that you share a country where a lot of people have no genuine commitment to protecting those rights, and while I'll admire William Kunstler types who'll take unpopular defendants so that the system will continue to function, if people who have no real interest in genuine…

I want to make it clear that I have zero interest in actually making Milo's speech illegal: as per the article, that'd only give him more power. But I think that the survival of our democracy might depend on marginalizing voices like his. Not through legal means, and not in "arguments" — "reason" usually doesn't work…

But it was banned in Germany for decades. And probably with good reason, even though every review of it I've ever read calls it more-or-less unreadable. But when you say "we can fight their words with our words," you sort of assume that words have power, that people listen carefully to them, and that people are…

But you're still presupposing a stable democratic system whose rules most people agree on anyway. To put it this way: American religious types are allowed to scream at and curse each other, and do. But our more-or-less secular system makes 'em do it in a corner where their doing so has relatively few social…

Aw. Cribbed from an essay on The Atlantic website, if you must know.

Sadly true. It's all very nice to say that our free speech laws allow us to say "I think we should exterminate black Americans," but if you're a black American, your life depends on other Americans — largely non-blacks — providing a sane answer to that question. Once that assurance is gone, a lot of my free speech…

The problem with this argument is that implicitly assumes that free speech will eventually lead to more speech which will eventually equal better decisions: that a benign invisible hand operates in the marketplace of ideas, much as it often does in commercial markets.

Well, that settles that.